There are plenty of issues to raise here, a few good but also plenty of bad. The coherence of the plot is noticeably better than in Moran's first effort, "Nefertiti", which felt like a force of nature carried the helpless characters along a raging torrent without rhyme or reason to the conclusion of the novel. This book at least has an objective in mind, and the plot revolves around whether or not Nefertari will succeed or fail in achieving this objective - becoming Chief Wife and exposing the plotting of Henuttawy and Iset. Unfortunately, "The Heretic Queen" is an example of an obstacle which could be easily resolved in five minutes if only the characters would take the necessary action, but gets artificially strung out over an entire book. Nefertari never reports Henuttawy and Iset's atrocious behaviour or plots to Ramesses, it is only after two people have died and their plotting is exposed beyond all doubt that she reveals her knowledge of the plot. Nefertari's unsatisfactory explanation for this that everyone else told her that Henuttawy would make it seem to Ramesses like she was lying. Frankly, that doesn't cut the mustard. Ramesses, we are told, loves Nefertari beyond all else and trusts her - are we honestly to believe that had Nefertari told him about Henuttawy and Iset, Ramesses would have been convinced that she was a liar and wouldn't have investigated the matter AT ALL? Doesn't sound like a very trusting relationship!
Henuttawy and Iset do not make credible antagonists and act more like petulant teenagers than real adversaries. Henuttawy at one point destroys a royal mural of Nefertari's mother, Mutnodjmet (in the book - historically we do not know the identity of her parents). This wanton destruction of the representation of an immortal queen (which according to Egyptian belief would have the effect of damaging Mutnodjmet's body in the afterlife) would have been unacceptable, even from a princess like Henuttawy. At other points Henuttawy makes completely out of line snide comments such as "And let us hope she does not have the blood of the Heretic King in her veins" at Nefertari's own wedding feast - a comment so out of line that it was obviously going to earn Henuttawy the rebuke of all present. It's the kind of ill-thought out dig that smacks of a stroppy teen, not a serious adversary. Iset is just as bad. Her ploys, such as arguing with Nefertari about the temple plans simply for the sake of it, are utterly transparent and she comes across as whiny and childish. And we're supposed to give these antagonists any credibility whatsoever? With such weak opponents facing Nefertari, the story completely lacks any tension.
Worse, the portrayals of almost every other character are equally one-dimensional and flat. Nefertari bears no resemblance at all to the complex, vibrant real woman of history, and is instead a cardboard cut-out child prodigy who can do no wrong and is woefully lacking in any real faults or flaws. This made it difficult to relate to her or empathise when she has to suffer through the childish pranks played on her by Iset and Henuttawy - even though I felt like Moran was hitting me over the head with "isn't Nefertari tragic? You should sympathise with her" with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. As for Ramesses, he comes across as disappointingly gullible and weak; manipulated by everyone around him. The other characters were wafer-thin and forgettable.
The main premise of the entire book is that Nefertari would have faced popular opposition due to being associated with Akhenaten and Nefertiti and their Aten worship. Leaving aside the fact that there are significant issues with the evidence and dating which make it improbable that Nefertari was Mutnodjmet's daughter (and that Mutnodjmet was even Nefertiti's sister), is it really plausible that peasants would have had close enough access to Queen Nefertari to have shouted "heretic" at her? Even if they could get that close, is it believable that any of them would've dared to do so? The answer is no, and this is just common sense, which applies even if you're not a historian. But hypothetically, if a large mob of angry peasants could have and wanted to heckle Nefertari during her wedding procession and later at the palace gates, would this have been allowed to happen? NO! Royal guards and army militiamen would have been ordered to swoop down on the mob long before they reached the sacred royals, and subdued them. Would Nefertari and Ramesses really come out to address the crowd? Not a chance. They're of the royal blood, descended from millennia of pharaohs and divine embodiments of the gods. They did not believe that they had to justify themselves to a small mob of disgruntled peasants - it was the gods that were important. The most disappointing thing is that this failure is less about historical accuracy than it is about poor quality writing. Plenty of books make historical errors or deliberate alterations which I can quite happily get on board with, because the author makes their fictional vision seem realistic, authentic, and ultimately gripping. Moran fails to do this. Her "heretic mob" scenarios are thinly sketched and feel absurd. The dialogue is juvenile and the descriptions are basic. There's no complexity here, no subtlety or sophistication.
In short, it's about suspension of disbelief. It is up to the writer to create an environment, a world in which the characters move, that is plausible in order to enable the reader to experience full immersion in the story. If the story is fantasy, sci-fi or another fantastical genre, that should not preclude it from being realistic or believable, as those worlds can have their own set of rules and laws, as long as they make sense in the story. In a book that is based in our world, and furthermore on actual events, as in the historical fiction genre, this kind of skill and storycraft is absolutely critical. People may use the excuse of "it's only fiction", and yes, this is a perfectly acceptable reason to excuse deliberately made historical alterations (hopefully revealed in an author's note, to avoid inadvertantly perpetuating incorrect information) within a story (though not unwitting errors - that's just bad research). However, "fiction" is not an adequate excuse for failing to produce a piece of work that immerses the reader, a work that the reader can't engage with because it lacks the feel of the genuine and the believable. That would be incorrectly correlating "fiction and non-fiction" with "unrealism and realism", when in fact, as aforementioned, there is nothing that should preclude a work of fiction from being realistic or plausible. Simply put, Moran lacks the skill and storycraft required to create this plausibility.
I was really disappointed with this book, because I had such high hopes for it. It's rare to find historical fiction on ancient Egypt, and I snapped this book up when I saw it. I really wanted it to be something that blew me away. Instead I finished the book feeling deflated. I wish Michelle Moran the best of luck with her future endeavours, as she seems genuinely interested in her subject, but I hope to see her develop more as an author and her novels improve. Until then, I'll be picking her books up from the library. For anyone looking for a gripping, complex plot with high quality writing and subtle characterisations - and decent historical accuracy to boot - I recommend Pauline Gedge instead.
3 out of 10